Remainiacs have moved their goalposts!

While the official Leave campaign faced much flak – both during and after the campaign – for giving misleading information, the Remain campaign was no better.

This scathing article exposes their hypocrisy. The author compares current statements from hard-core remainers with the things they were saying during the campaign. The cusp of the author’s argument is that Open Britain, which is what the failed Britain Stronger in Europe has now become, is arguing that leaving the Single Market would be a disaster. A few months ago, on the other hand, they were saying that leaving the EU would be a disaster. In other words, adopting the exit strategy they are now throwing their weight behind, would mean there need not be any economic damage from withdrawal. This isn’t what they were saying in the run up to June 23rd. To quote:-

“For top Remainers the EU referendum was never about economics. It was about their craven desire to live in an amorphous internationalist blob where the nation state is fatally undermined and the strongest level of government and identity reforms at the European level. That’s what they wanted but couldn’t say in public. And so instead they falsely equated the EU with the single market in an attempt to scare low information voters and assorted unthinking lefties that voting for Brexit inherently meant economic doom.”

We must be thankful that most remainers, including Labour MPs, have accepted the result of June’s vote but it would be very good news if they were prepared to admit that they were at the time deliberately diverting attention away from the EEA/EFTA option which they are now ardently embracing. From David Cameron downwards, they all knew that this exit route would take us out of the political union, preserve our trade links and – most importantly – be a far more popular option than continued EU membership.

Furthermore, this implicit admission shoots dead any idea of a second referendum. If erstwhile hard-core remainers are admitting that the EEA/EFTA exit route really isn’t too bad, they would be laughed out of town if they tried to crank up Project Fear again. Thankfully, the goalposts have moved; the debate is no longer about in or out, but rather about the best route out. For this, we must be thankful.

9 Comments

Doesn’t the EEA option involve accepting the EU’s absurd and completely impractical total freedom of movement ideal? I know there were several good reasons to vote leave on June 23rd such as reclaiming our national sovereignty but there was also that issue of controlling our borders. I voted to leave for several reasons and one of them was so we could control our borders again. I hope this isn’t sacrificed in the talks about our leaving but I fear it will be.

WIthin the EEA agreement, it is possible for non-EU countries to restrict freedom of movement. You will find quite a few articles on this website discussing the so-called Liechtenstein option”. See here. for instance:- Furthermore, advocates of this exit route only view it as a short-term holding position to get us through the Brexit door within the 2-year framework of Article 50, after which something looser needs to be negotiated.

Ah but Norway’s Conservative Party aspires to EU membership. Do you think they are going to tell the truth? After all, a certain Mr Heath was none too honest in the 1960s and early 1970s. Try reading this for a more accurate assessment. Norway’s pro-EU [oliticians know that Brexit has finally killed off any lingering hopes they may have entgertained of conning their countrymen into joining.

When I am ‘confronted’ by others with the opinion that ‘Free Trade must mean free movement of labour’ I often ask how our relationship with the USA works when it does so without this rule! Almost inevitably the response is silence!

1) In the single socio-economic market with many of the meddling rules and less say how they are made
2) No control of Borders.
3) The EEA agreement is not a static agreement and changes at the whim of the EU not EFTA
4) The EFTA Court is a very thin protection from the EUCJ
5) Continuing EU Contribution. They would “punish” us by withdrawing the rebate.
6) The Article 50 Agreement will be easier to negotiate now rather than squandering the opportunity by staying in EEA and then trying to leave that with a subsequent FTA.
a) A50 will be negotiated with the EU chief negotiator appointed by the European Council and will be passed in the EU by qualified majority voting. If we leave trade to a subsequent negotiation we would be dealing with the incompetent EU Trade Commissioner and risk a deal being blocked by Walloon.
b) If we combine the the trade with the non-trade agreement we will be able to leverage cooperation on science, security, defence and so on to get the trade agreement that we would like.

An EU trade deal is “nice to have” but not essential. We can adopt the WTO EU tariff and trade schedules on an informal basis until we have negotiated amendments.
The fall in the Pound is greater than any tariffs they could apply so UK goods will remain competitive in the EU even without an agreement.

That isn’t what NEI TIL EU said in their article on this website Matt. The fact is that European Politicians who are pro the European Soviet union are not to be trusted. I voted in the Petition to have “Lord Kilmuir’s Letter To Heath,” debated fully in Parliament. I received an EMail this morning from the Parliamentary Committee on Petitions saying that “Lord kilmuirs Letter and the matter of Sovereignty has been discussed many time in Parliament.” That is a deliberate and open lie. Lord Kilmuir’s Letter and its contents have never been raised in Parliament once, and neither has the Misprision of Treason that Atkinson and McWhirter tried to bring against Heath.

Being ex forces I believe in “K.I.S.S” Keep It Simple (Stupid). Mrs May should rock up to the EU the day after triggering artificial 50 with a A4 sheet of paper stating “We promise not to impose tariffs on your goods and services unless you do on ours (sign here). However if you do then so be it but with the balance of trade we will be approximately 6 billion better off than you and will use that income to reimburse our exporters.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are pre-moderated, to ensure they comply with our high standards of constructive, informed and civilised discussion. We do not employ full time members of staff, so there may be a delay of several hours before your comment appears. By submitting a comment to our site you agree to comply with our code of conduct. Comments that do not comply may be edited or not published.

Join CIB

Join the UK’s longest-running membership organisation for leaving the EU.

Remainiacs have moved their goalposts!

Stay Updated

Get new articles delivered to your inbox

Leave this field empty if you're human:

The Campaign for an Independent Britain is a non-party political campaigning organisation of people from all walks of life who recognize that continuing British membership of the European Union poses grave threats to our liberties, independence, and economic prosperity.

Popular Posts

CIB is the UK’s longest-running membership organisation campaigning for UK independence from the EU. We aim to promote constructive, informed and civilised discussion on all aspects of leaving the EU and the dangers of Euro-federalism. All comments are pre-moderated, to ensure they comply with our community standards. We do not employ full time members of staff, so there may be a delay of several hours before your comment appears. By submitting a comment to our site you agree to comply with the following code of conduct. Comments that do not comply may be edited or not published.

Stay on topic. Comments must be relevant to the topic of the article.

Be respectful. Use moderate, civil and respectful language. Aggressive, offensive or disrespectful language (whether explicit or implied/masked) will not be tolerated.

No spam. Comments containing links to other websites will be deleted as spam. Links to external content directly relevant to the topic of the article may be included, provided the comment includes an explanation as to how it is relevant to the topic of the article.

Political neutrality. CIB is a cross-party organisation: comments should respect this. Moderately-worded criticism of politicians/policies is of course permitted, but should not be partisan in nature.

Be constructive. Any suggestions should be practicable, reasonable and attainable.

Maintain high standards of debate. CIB is a long-standing, widely-respected organisation. Our aim is to promote constructive and informed discussion on Brexit and EU-related issues. If you wish to rant or harangue, please find an alternative website.